Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1472 - ITAT CHANDIGARHPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - no positive income - Assessee contended that as the net result of the case of the assessee is a loss, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable - proof of bonafide mistake - claim of carry forward losses - findings as to the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars - AO relying on the decision of CIT Vs. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.[2008 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] held that even it the returned income as well as assessed income are loss, still penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable - CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty HELD THAT:- This is a case where excess claim of carry forward losses was made by the assessee, which was disallowed by the A.O., since it was not as per law. The assessee did not challenge the said order of the A.O. and accepted the said assessment. It is not a case of concealment of income as the AO himself has picked up all facts and figures from the return of income and the details filed by the assessee. It is not also a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the assessee has disclosed all particulars rightly before the AO. It is a case where a excess claim was made by the assessee in its return. Every disallowance or addition made by AO could not be the sole basis for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Assessee has pleaded bonafide, which gets strengthened by the fact that the particulars of brought forward loss were declared to revenue and as per AO, assessee could claim business losses of only eight years and assessee was dependent on legal advice only. The explanation offered by the assessee was therefore bonafide. It is a clear case of claim made by committing a bonafide mistake. The claim of carry forward losses is on account of an inadvertent & bonafide error and not intending to conceal income or to furnish inaccurate particulars of income. As this is a case of addition on account of excess claim made by the assessee, penalty could not be levied under section 271 (1)(c) - Case of RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] to be followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
|